detect_memory_leak

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating this is a safe, repeatable analysis operation. The description adds value by specifying what gets analyzed (RxJS code for memory leaks and subscription issues), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Analyze RxJS code') and specifies the target issues. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (analyzing code for memory leaks), annotations cover safety (read-only, idempotent), and schema fully describes parameters. However, there's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what the analysis returns (e.g., warnings, suggestions, scores). For a code analysis tool, this gap reduces completeness, though annotations provide some context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'code' as RxJS code to analyze and 'componentLifecycle' as context with enum options. The description mentions analyzing RxJS code, aligning with the 'code' parameter, but adds no extra semantic details beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing RxJS code for memory leaks and subscription issues. It specifies the technology (RxJS) and the type of analysis (memory leaks, subscription management). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_operators or suggest_pattern, which might also analyze RxJS code but for different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for analyzing RxJS code, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_operators or suggest_pattern. It mentions component lifecycle context in the schema, suggesting it's useful for framework-specific code, but this isn't stated in the description itself. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.